Methods and systems for a compliance framework database schema

ABSTRACT

Generating a compliance framework. The compliance framework facilitates an organization&#39;s compliance with multiple authority documents by providing efficient methodologies and refinements to existing technologies, such as providing hierarchical fidelity to the original authority document; separating auditable citations from their context (e.g., prepositions and or informational citations); asset focused citations; SNED and Live values, among others.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION(S)

The present application is a continuation of U.S. patent applicationSer. No. 13/723,018, filed on Dec. 20, 2012 and entitled “METHODS ANDSYSTEMS FOR A COMPLIANCE FRAMEWORK DATABASE SCHEMA,” which claims thebenefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/722,759, filed Nov. 5,2012 and entitled “METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR A UNIFIED COMPLIANCEFRAMEWORK DATABASE SCHEMA,” both of which are incorporated herein byreference in their entireties. This application is related to U.S.patent application Ser. No. 13/952,212, filed on Jul. 26, 2013 andentitled “METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR A COMPLIANCE FRAMEWORK DATABASESCHEMA,” now U.S. Pat. No. 8,661,059, which is incorporated herein byreference in its entirety.

BACKGROUND

Authority Documents (e.g., policies, guidelines, regulations) used forauditing organizations are written for humans. They are commonly writtenand presented in hierarchical format (e.g., with sections andsubsections) as a set of questions intended for the human reader tonavigate. Written in a hierarchical format, Authority Documents (ADs)use visual cues to instruct the reader that certain questions in theaudit can be ignored. For example, if a person answers “not applicable”to question 1, then common reading skills allow the person to logicallyskip questions 1.1, 1.2, and so on, moving instead to question 2 inorder to continue. Authority Documents are often the basis for an auditto ensure an organization's compliance.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

One or more embodiments of the present invention is illustrated by wayof example and are not limited to the figures of the accompanyingdrawings, in which like references indicate similar elements.

FIG. 1 shows an environment of a basic and suitable computer that mayemploy aspects of the compliance framework.

FIG. 2 shows the various elements within the Meta Data portion of aCompliance framework table.

FIG. 3 shows the process for adding or editing a record and thatinteraction with the Meta Data.

FIGS. 4A-4B (referred to herein as FIG. 4) show diagrams depictingfeatures of an Authority Document and Authority Document Table.

FIGS. 5A-5C (referred to herein as FIG. 5) are examples of featuresassociated with a Citation Table.

FIGS. 6A-6B (referred to herein as FIG. 6) are examples of featuresassociated with a Record Examples Table.

FIGS. 7A-7B (referred to herein as FIG. 7) are examples of featuresassociated with an Assets Table.

FIG. 8 is an example of features associated with a Configuration ItemsSettings Table.

FIG. 9 is a simple workflow for mapping an Authority Document andassociated Citations.

FIGS. 10A-10B (referred to herein as FIG. 10) depict the mapping processshown in FIG. 9 at a record and linkage level.

FIGS. 11A-11B (referred to herein as FIG. 11) are examples of featuresassociated with a Controls Table.

FIG. 12 is a simple workflow for matching a Citation to a Controlthrough its verbs and nouns.

FIGS. 13A-13B (referred to herein as FIG. 13) depict the matchingprocess shown in FIG. 12 at a record and linkage level.

FIGS. 14A-14B (referred to herein as FIG. 14) are examples of featuresassociated with an Audit Table.

FIG. 15A-15B (referred to herein as FIG. 15) depict connecting aCitation to an Audit Question, and a Control to an Audit Question.

FIG. 16 is a flowchart of a simple process used to map a new or existingAuthority Document's citation.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The inventors have recognized that current technology has failed toefficiently address parsing a portion of an Authority Document todetermine an audit question from its contexts or other text. Forexample, “Implement firewall and router configuration standards thatinclude the following:” is text from an actual audit guide. This textisn't to be interpreted as an audit question per se. Instead, it is aprepositional placeholder for text that follows so that each followingcitation, when displayed, doesn't have to contain “do the firewallstandards include . . . ”. For purposes of asking audit questions, theprepositional placeholder can be ignored; however, for purposes ofdisplaying it in Reports of Compliance, it cannot be ignored.

In a similar manner, instructions within an audit question regarding howto attach certain evidence to the working papers of the audit processmay readily be understood by a person. For example, an instruction suchas, “obtain document X and compare it to record Y—are they are thesame?” can be interpreted by a person to mean: add both documents to theworking papers library of this audit and compare them for theirsimilarities; however, a computer cannot interpret what to do withoutfurther instructions.

When an edited version of an audit guide is distributed for reading, theedited version can include common editing symbols and methodologies,such as strikethrough to show deleted text (e.g., deleted text) andunderline to show new text (e.g., new text). A person trained tounderstand these symbols may readily read and interpret changes betweendifferent versions of the same document. However, computer audit tools,such as Governance Risk and Compliance (GRC) tools, that utilize theseguides must be given explicit instructions to do all of the above.

The inventors have recognized that a problem with existing technology isa lack of harmonized governance processes to support an organization'sefforts in gathering evidentiary support when being audited. Acompliance framework tool is described herein that allows anorganization to efficiently navigate through myriad overlappingpolicies, guidelines, regulations, etc. to locate evidence for use in anaudit, based on questions derived from a hierarchy of citations fromauthority documents applicable to the organization's environment.

In some embodiments, the compliance framework provides systems andmethods of a unified compliance framework for generating audit-basedquestions based on citations that are derived from an aggregation ofhierarchical formatted authority documents. For example, the complianceframework can convert hierarchical information (e.g., structuredcitations and their corresponding content from the authority documents)into a modular format (e.g., markup language, such as XML) forintegrating into a variety of existing and emerging operatingenvironments (e.g., various database techniques, schemas andmethodologies) used by an organization.

Various embodiments of the technology are described below. The followingdescription provides specific details for a thorough understanding andenabling description of these embodiments. One skilled in the art willunderstand that the compliance framework may be practiced without manyof these details. Additionally, some well-known structures or functionsmay not be shown or described in detail, so as to avoid unnecessarilyobscuring the relevant description of the various embodiments. Certainaspects of this technology relate to U.S. Provisional Application No.61/722,759, which is incorporated herein in its entirety by reference.

The terminology used in the description presented is intended to beinterpreted in its broadest reasonable manner, even though it is beingused in conjunction with a detailed description of certain specificembodiments of the technology. Certain terms may even be emphasizedbelow; however, any terminology intended to be interpreted in anyrestricted manner will be overtly and specifically defined as such inthis Detailed Description section.

The techniques introduced below can be implemented by programmablecircuitry programmed or configured by software and/or firmware, orentirely by special-purpose circuitry, or in a combination of suchforms. Such special-purpose circuitry (if any) can be in the form of,for example, one or more application-specific integrated circuits(ASICs), programmable logic devices (PLDs), field-programmable gatearrays (FPGAs), etc.

FIG. 1 and the following discussion provide a brief, general descriptionof a suitable computing environment in which aspects of the complianceframework can be implemented. Although not required, aspects of thetechnology may be described herein in the general context ofcomputer-executable instructions, such as routines executed by a generalor special-purpose data processing device (e.g., a server or clientcomputer). Aspects of the technology described herein may be stored ordistributed on tangible computer-readable media, including magneticallyor optically readable computer discs, hard-wired or preprogrammed chips(e.g., EEPROM semiconductor chips), nanotechnology memory, biologicalmemory, or other data storage media. Alternatively, computer-implementedinstructions, data structures, screen displays, and other data relatedto the technology may be distributed over the Internet or over othernetworks (including wireless networks) on a propagated signal on apropagation medium (e.g., an electromagnetic wave, a sound wave) over aperiod of time. In some implementations, the data may be provided on anyanalog or digital network (packet switched, circuit switched, or otherscheme).

The compliance framework can also be practiced in distributed computingenvironments where tasks or modules are performed by remote processingdevices, which are linked through a communications network, such as aLocal Area Network (LAN), Wide Area Network (WAN), or the Internet. In adistributed computing environment, program modules or sub-routines maybe located in both local and remote memory storage devices. Thoseskilled in the relevant art will recognize that portions of thecompliance framework may reside on a server computer, whilecorresponding portions reside on a client computer (e.g., PC, mobilecomputer, tablet, or smart phone). Data structures and transmission ofdata particular to aspects of the technology are also encompassed withinthe scope of the compliance framework.

Referring to FIG. 1, the compliance framework employs a computer (100),such as a personal computer, workstation, phone or tablet, having one ormore processors (101) coupled to one or more user input devices (102)and data storage devices (104). The computer (100) is also coupled to atleast one output device such as a display device (106) and one or moreoptional additional output devices (108) (e.g., printer, plotter,speakers, tactile or olfactory output devices). The computer (100) maybe coupled to external computers, such as via an optional networkconnection (110), a wireless transceiver (112), or both. For example,network hubs, switches, routers, or other hardware network componentswithin the network connection (110) and/or wireless transceiver (112)can couple one or more computers (100).

The input devices (102) may include a keyboard and/or a pointing devicesuch as a mouse. Other input devices are possible, such as a microphone,joystick, pen, game pad, scanner, digital camera, video camera, and thelike. The data storage devices (104) may include any type ofcomputer-readable media that can store data accessible by the computer(100), such as magnetic hard and floppy disk drives, optical diskdrives, magnetic cassettes, tape drives, flash memory cards, digitalvideo discs (DVDs), Bernoulli cartridges, RAMs, ROMs, smart cards, etc.Indeed, any medium for storing or transmitting computer-readableinstructions and data may be employed, including a connection port to ornode on a network, such as a LAN, WAN, or the Internet (not shown inFIG. 1).

Compliance Framework

The compliance framework is a framework to make implementing, testing,managing and or monitoring audit questions easier and more rigorous. Inone embodiment, database tables associate portions of a modular data(e.g., Meta Data, basic information, and references); however, othertechniques capable of organizing referential data have been contemplatedby the inventors.

Compliance Framework Meta Data

In one embodiment, the compliance framework (CF) uses a set of tablespresented in a hierarchical-based markup language (e.g., XML) tofacilitate ease of integration. Each row of a table organizes the tableinto individual records (215) that may include Meta Data, customcontent, and possible references to other tables. The common Meta Dataformat and content of each row is used by GRC tools and other datadriven applications to interpret what to do with each of the records inthe table. The standard and optional elements of the Meta Data elementsof each table are further described below.

FIG. 2 illustrates example Meta Data elements (201-213) of a complianceframework table (200). Each record (215) of each table (e.g., (200)) inthe CF is associated with a unique and persistent identifier. Forexample, Citation ID column (202) has unique and persistent identifiers(e.g., “39307,” “39311,” 32431,” etc.) for each respective record (215)in the table (200) (see also, FIG. 5). Other tables in the CF haveunique and persistent identifiers associated with each record in theirrespective tables. The Release Version (201) is used to indicate thetable's release date. To ensure that the Citation IDs (202) haveintegrity during input as well as distribution while being transferredinto various formats (e.g., Excel, Word, Text, and or XML), in oneembodiment, each Citation ID (202) is associated to a checksum value(203).

The compliance framework treats each Citation ID (202) as both uniqueand persistent. A Citation ID (202), in some embodiments, is maintainedand or persistent within a database or other retention system.Therefore, if a record (215) must be redacted, its Live Status (204) ischanged from a first value (e.g., “1”) to indicate a live record (220)to a second value (e.g., “0”) that indicates a withdrawn record (222). ASNED element (205) indicates an editorial status of a record (215). SNEDstands for Same, New, Edited and Deprecated. To calculate a SNED elementvalue, a checksum is created (not shown) for each record (215) based onthe fields' contents in that record (215). For example, upon each newrelease of a record (215), values in the current release's checksum arecompared to checksum values in the previous record's (215) release. Ifthe two checksum values are the same, the result is “S” (230); if thereis no previous checksum value, the result is “N” (234); if the currentchecksum does not match the previous, the result is “E” (232); if thecurrent checksum's first digit is 0 and the previous release was 1, theresult is “D,” (236) for example. The Citation Date Added (206) elementindicates the date the record (215) was added. The Citation DateModified (207) element indicates the date the record (215) was lastmodified. If the record (215) is deprecated, the Deprecated By (208)element indicates the surviving record's ID (240). The Deprecation Notes(209) element indicates why (242) the record (215) was deprecated. Thelanguage used in the record (215) is indicated in (212). If a record(215) is licensed outside of the normal compliance framework licensingscheme, for example, a License Info (213) URL (or other indicator and ordescription) may be used to indicate a location for additionalinformation.

For tables that must be presented in hierarchical order, as opposed to aflat document, each record (215) with a Parent ID (210) and Sort Value(211) are used to indicate a record's (215) location within thehierarchy. These two elements (210 and 211) present sufficientinformation for an interpreting application and or tool to create itsown unique sort order for the records (215) in the table (200). EveryMeta Data element (201-213) is not required to implement a complianceframework. One or more of the Meta Data elements (201-213) can beassociated with the Unified Framework Table (200). This also applies toother tables in the CF.

FIG. 3 illustrates an example process (300) to add or update a record(215) in or to the compliance framework and to the associated Meta Datarecords, as discussed in the description for FIG. 4. An initial decisionis made to add or update a record (215), in step (301), based on whetherthe record already exists in the UFC. In one embodiment, if the recordis being added, the SNED value is assigned an N (302), the Date Addedfield indicates when the record (215) is added to the UFC, in (303), theLive Status (204) is set to 1 to indicate that the record (215) iscurrent (304), and the record (215) is created, in step (305). In oneembodiment, if the record (215) is being updated (i.e., not added), adecision is made to edit or delete the record, in step (306). If therecord is deleted, the SNED value is set to D (307), and Date Modified(207) is added (308), and the Live Status (204) of the record (215) isset to 0 to indicate the record has been edited, in step (309). If therecord (215) is updated, in some embodiments, the SNED value (204) isset to E to indicate the record (215) has been edited, in step (310),the Date Modified (207) date is updated (311), and the record (215) isedited, in step (312).

Compliance Framework Tables

A combination of one or more of the disclosed technologies allows forefficiencies in preparing, sorting, presenting and or gathering evidencefor an audit. Each of the above-mentioned features of the complianceframework is further described below. One or more of the elementsdescribed in the forthcoming tables may be optionally excluded in the CFwhile other elements have been contemplated by the inventors and can beadded to one or more of the forthcoming tables.

FIG. 4 illustrates an Authority Document Table (400). FIG. 4 depicts theAuthority Document Table (400) as multiple portions, including Meta Data(400 a) (e.g., having one or more elements 201-213 of Meta Data portion(200) and Basic Info (400 b). The Meta Data portion (400 a) and theBasic Info portion (400 b) are separated into two these portions (e.g.,tables), however, this is an aid for the view. The inventors contemplatethat the Meta Data portion (400 a) and the Basic Info Table areimplemented as a single table. The Basic Info (400 b) of AuthorityDocument Table (400) contains elements (403-415) for organizing the ADsinto a library (not shown) having the AD's Parent Category (403) (e.g.,payment card guidance); Originator (404) (e.g., the Payment CardIndustry); Type (405) (e.g., a contractual obligation); and Title Type(406) (e.g., Authority Document (AD) (i.e. a document with controls), orGlossary (GL) (i.e. an AD without controls). Controls are explained inmore detail below. The Universal Resource Locator (URL) (407) denoteswhere the Authority Document was found (e.g., at a website), however,other indicators and or descriptions can be used.

Naming information (412) of an Authority Document may include a CommonName (408) (i.e., what the AD is commonly referred as); Published Name(409); and Version (410), which together form the Official Name (411).

The Authority Document's Availability (413) Effective Date (414) and acalculated description (415) are optionally included in the AuthorityDocument Table (400) to denote additional information.

FIG. 5 shows one example of a Citation Table (500) that is capable ofimplementing features of the compliance framework. The Citation Table(500), in some embodiments, has three parts; Meta Data (500 a); BasicInfo (500 b); and associated References (500 c). Meta Data (500 a) issimilar to Meta Data (200), therefore, to simplify the description forFIG. 5, a detailed description of Meta Data (500 a) is not included aspart of the description for FIG. 5.

The Basic Info (500 b) of a citation may contain Citation Reference(503) and a Citation Guidance (504). In one embodiment, a CitationReference (503) represents a section (e.g., § 1.1.1) of an AD. CitationGuidance elements (504) represents the content associated with theCitation Reference (503). In some embodiments, the Citation Guidance(504) is examined, by the CF, for their verbs and nouns. The nounswithin each row of the Citation Guidance (504) are used to referencepotential evidence for the compliance framework. For example, CitationID 32431 (550 a) refers to Citation Guidance entry (550 b) which states,“Verify that there is a formal process for testing and approval of allnetwork connections and firewall configurations.” The noun “routerconfigurations” is identified and linked to a specific Record Example(e.g., “21”) (550 c) and Asset ID “669” (580). Record Examples areexplained in more detail in reference to FIG. 6. In another instance,the Citation ID “32436” (570 a) refers to Citation Guidance (570 b)“Verify that firewall configuration standards include requirements for afirewall at each Internet connection and between any DMZ and theinternal network zone.” The noun “firewall configuration standard” isidentified and can be linked to a specific Compliance Document (e.g.,“106”) (570 c) and the noun “firewall” may be identified and linked to aspecific Asset (e.g., “1524”) (570 d).

In some embodiments a single citation contains more than one noun. Forexample, Citation ID 32431 (i.e., “§ 1.1.1 Testing Procedures”)describes both “network connections” and, additionally, “firewallconfigurations.” The noun “network connection” is identified and linkedto Record Example (e.g., “21”) (550 c) and to Asset ID “669” (580 a),for example, and the noun “firewall configurations” is linked to thesame Record Example (e.g., “21”) (550 c) but a different Asset (e.g.,“1524”) (580 b), which is the same Asset “1524” associated with the“firewall” noun in Citation ID “32436” (570 a).

Nouns, in some embodiments, are maintained in external tables suited todefine each type of noun. Example noun tables include Assets,Configuration Items, Roles, Events, Metrics, Organizational Functions,Organizational Tasks, Record Category, Record Examples, Data Field, andcDocs, among others.

FIG. 6 illustrates an example Record Examples Table (600) that containsinformation specific to nouns that are records. FIG. 6 depicts theRecord Examples table (600) into a Meta Data portion (600 a) and BasicInfo portion (600 b).

The Meta Data portion (600 a) is explained in more detail in FIG. 2 andin other tables, therefore, for simplification its features are notdescribed in detail in FIG. 6. The Basic Info portion (600 b) for arecord example may include, among other things, the Record Example Name(605), Record Example Retention Years (608) (e.g., “hold for 5 years,”etc.); Record Example Description (606); and a Record Example RetentionEvent (607) (e.g., “after the contract is closed,” “when the caseopens,” etc.). In other embodiments, one or more of 605-608 areoptional.

FIG. 7 illustrates an Asset Table (700) that contains informationspecific to nouns that are assets (e.g., routers, firewalls, etc.). FIG.7 depicts the Asset table (700) as having a Meta Data portion (700 a)and Basic Info portion (700 b). The Basic Info (700 b) of an asset mayinclude, in some embodiments, the Asset's Category (703) (e.g.,networks, applications, hardware, facilities,_([DC1]) etc.); Asset Class(704); (e.g., a subcategory of Asset category (703); Asset Type (705);Asset Name (706); Asset Common Name (707); Asset Version (708); AssetPlatform (709) (e.g., 32 bit processor, 63 bit processor, INTEL, AMD,etc._([DC2])); and Asset Update information (710) (e.g., the update'sversion information, such as “Revision 42 a, patch 15B, etc._([DC3])).

FIG. 8 illustrates the Configuration Items Settings Table (800) thatcontains information specific to nouns that are configurations settings(e.g., “deny all traffic if ‘X’ occurs”). FIG. 8 depicts theConfiguration Items Setting Table (800) as having a Meta Data portion(800 a) and Basic Info portion (800 b). The Basic Info portion (800 b)contains information specific to nouns that define a Configuration Item(804) (e.g., “Rules Configuration settings”) and its Settings (805)(e.g., “deny all traffic unless explicitly allowed”).

FIG. 9 is a flowchart (900) showing how the CF adds a citation from anAuthority Document and then links the nouns in the record to citation'sCitation Guidance (504), as discussed above. When a new AuthorityDocument is added to the compliance framework, its relevant information(e.g. one or more elements 403-415 of FIG. 4, for example) is assembledinto the Authority Document's record, in step (902), and added to a,optional, database, in step (903). In some embodiments, once an AD ID(202) for a new Authority Document is identified, one or more newcitation references can be added and linked to the AD's ID (202), instep (904). For example, as previously discussed, verbs and nouns can bedefined within a citation (905) and linked to their correspondingrecords in appropriate tables, as processed in step (906). CitationGuidance (504) may contain one or more nouns. When a citation has morethan a signal noun, each noun can be treated separate from other nounsin the citation (i.e. each noun is linked to a corresponding record inan appropriate table (906)), as further described in the description forFIG. 10.

FIG. 10 depicts the process of FIG. 9 at a record level. An AuthorityDocument record, (e.g., having AD ID of 1071 (1050), has recordinformation (1010 a) associated with its corresponding Meta Data (450a), and Basic Info (450 b) and any references and or additionalinformation (not shown). A new Citation, having Citation ID ‘32431’(1060), for example, is created with its corresponding information (1010b), such as its Meta Data (500 a) and Basic Info (500 b). A reference(1003) between the new Citation, (i.e., Citation ID ‘32431’ (1060)) andthe existing Authority Document (i.e., AD ID 1071 (1050)) is linkedtogether (1003) (i.e., a logical connection is made). In someembodiments, once the citation is created, its nouns are examined andassociated (linked) to Record Example Tables (600). For example, thenoun “network connections” (1070) found within Citation Guidance “Verifythat there is a formal process for testing and approval of all networkconnections and firewall change requests” (1080), is linked (1005) tothe Record Example Name “Network Change Control Requests” (1082) ofRecord Example (1010 c) to form a connection between the two records(1010 b) and (1010 c). In some embodiments, more than one noun is in asingle citation. For example, in the above example “network connections”and “firewall change control requests” are each present in the CitationGuidance (1080). In this scenario, “network connections” is linked asdescribed above. In addition, “firewall change request,” in someembodiments, is separately linked to the same or other Record ExampleTable(s) (600).

A process similar to the process of FIGS. 9-10 is also applicable tonouns of other assets. For example, the process described in FIG. 9 canbe used for Configuration Items, Roles, Events, Metrics, OrganizationalFunctions, organizational tasks, record category, record example, datafield, and cDocs.

FIG. 11 depicts example features of a Controls Table (1100). Table 1100has at least Meta Data Information (1100 a) and Basic Information (1100b). Controls are harmonized, or de-duplicated noun/verb pairs thatoriginate from citations. The Basic Info (1100 b) for Controls are theControl Title (i.e., a harmonized, or de-duplicated noun/verb pairs thatoriginate from Citations) (1120); an Impact Zone categorization (i.e.,the category affected by the harmonized control) of the Control (1105);the Classification for the Control (1106); and a Control's action Type(1107).

FIG. 12 is a flowchart (1200) showing how the CF maps citations toexisting Controls, or creates new Controls if a citation is not matched.Initially, a citation's verbs and nouns are reviewed (1201) and thensearched for in one or more Controls, in step (1202). If there is aVerb/Noun match (1203), the process flows to connect the Citation to aControl (1204). This noun matching is shown at the record level in FIG.13.

In FIG. 13, Citation Guidance, “Verify that there is a formal processfor testing and approval of all network connections and firewallconfigurations,” (1350 a) of Citation Record (1320 a), is linked (1304)to Control record (1320 b) based on at least sharing the same CE ID“548” (1310 b). Citation Record (1320 a) and Control Record (1320 b)having Control Title, “Test and Approve all firewall configurationChanges,” (1350 b) are respectively linked (1305 and 1306) to the samenoun/Record Example (1320 c) based on their shared value for RecordExample Id (i.e., 21).

Returning to FIG. 12, in some embodiments, had there not been aVerb/Noun bridge between the citation (1320 a) and the Control (1320 c),the flow would have proceeded to step (1205). In this scenario, a newControl can be created, at step (1205), based upon the language found inthe Citation. The Control's nouns and verbs can be linked, at step(1206) and (1207), to their respective tables The process ends at step(1210).

Auditing Compliance

In order to test an organization's compliance to the various AuthorityDocuments and their Citations, the compliance framework, in someembodiments, synthesizes one or more Citation Statement into an AuditQuestion. Within the compliance framework Audit Questions follow thesame Meta Data (e.g. 200), Basic Info (e.g. 450 b), and references (e.g.500 c) format as the other previously described tables.

FIG. 14 depicts one example of an Audit Table (1400) that is capable ofimplementing features of the compliance framework. FIG. 14 illustratesthe Audit Table depicted as three main parts: Meta Data (1400 a), BasicInfo (1400 b) and associated References (1400 c).

Audit Questions are a pairing of evidence and examination methods. Thecompliance framework creates an Audit Question (1405) based upon one ormore of, a linguistic calculation of an examination method (1406),evidence associated with the Audit Question (e.g. information inReferences 1400 c), and any agreed upon variables to the question(1407). An example of an Audit Question Method (1405) is “Examine theControl in the cDoc as compared to Records in the Record Category. Doesthis define how the control process is being carried out?” (1450),paired with a cDoc ID 30 (1451), a Control ID 548 (1452), a RecordCategory ID 211 (1453), and a Record Example ID 21 (1454). Thecompliance framework's methodology can identify the text from therelevant IDs (1451-1454) and replace placeholder terms (e.g. Control,cDoc, Records, and Record Category) with the text matching each relevantID. The resultant Audit Item Question (1405) can be “Examine the controlentitled Test and approve all firewall configuration changes [CF CE ID00548] in the Network Change Management policy as compared to NetworkChange Control Requests records in the Network Management andMaintenance Records record category. Does this define how the controlprocess is being carried out?” (1480).

FIG. 15 is a depiction of linking a Citation Record (1501) and a ControlRecord (1504) to an Audit Question (1510) of an Audit Record (1502). ACitation Record (1501) is linked (1503) to an Audit Question (1510)based on each record sharing the same Audit Item ID (e.g., 3443). EachControl Record (1504) is linked (1505) to that Audit Question (1510),based on each sharing the same Control Example ID (e.g. 548). Linkingallows different Citations (1501) from different Authority Documentsthat map to the same Control (1504) to use the same Audit Question(1510) if the evidential nouns match, for example.

FIG. 16 is a flowchart (1600) showing how the CF is used to map a new orexisting Authority Document's Citation(s). Once a new Authority Documentis mapped, in step (1601), the compliance framework can determinewhether the Authority Document is new or an update to an existingAuthority Document, in step (1602). If the Authority Document is new tothe compliance framework, the Authority Document can be reviewed for itsapplicable categories (e.g., Payment Guidance; AIPLA; GovernmentCompliancy Statue) (1603). If the category exists in the AuthorityDocument Table, that category is selected (1604). Following this, a newcategory record is created and selected (1605). If the originator of theAuthority Document exists (1606), that originator is selected (1607),otherwise a new originator record is created and selected (1608). Atstep 1609, a new Authority Document record can be created in theAuthority Document Table (1616) and, based at least on some of theselected information, a new Authority Document is created (1610).Citations are then mapped to the new Authority Document (1611) and theprocess ends at step 1650.

If, during step 1602, it is determined that the Authority Document is anupdate to an existing Authority Document, the existing AuthorityDocument is selected, step (1612), and its version information isupdated to indicate a new version (1613). A new record for the newAuthority Document is created in the Authority Document Table, andoptionally sorted relative to the placement of the preview version ofthe Authority Document (1614). At step 1615, citations are mapped to thenew Authority Document. Step 1616, indicates that the previous (e.g.,the original) Authority Document is deprecated based on the updatedAuthority Document. In some embodiments, all of the citations associatedwith the previous version of the Authority Document are marked fordeprecations (1617). The process ends at step 1650.

The compliance framework describes a unified compliance framework forfacilitating an organization's compliance with multiple authoritydocuments by providing efficient methodologies and refinements toexisting technologies, such as providing hierarchical fidelity to theoriginal Authority Document; separating auditable citations from theircontext (e.g., prepositions and or informational citations); assetfocused citations; and SNED and Live values, among others.

In general, the detailed description of embodiments of the complianceframework is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the technology tothe precise form disclosed above. While specific embodiments of, andexamples for, the technology are described above for illustrativepurposes, various equivalent modifications are possible within the scopeof the compliance framework, as those skilled in the relevant art willrecognize. For example, while processes or blocks are presented in agiven order, alternative embodiments may perform routines having steps,or employ systems having blocks, in a different order, and someprocesses or blocks may be deleted, moved, added, subdivided, combined,and/or modified. Each of these processes or blocks may be implemented ina variety of different ways. Also, while processes or blocks are attimes shown as being performed in series, these processes or blocks mayinstead be performed in parallel, or may be performed at differenttimes.

The teachings of the compliance framework provided herein can be appliedto other systems, not necessarily the system described herein. Theelements and acts of the various embodiments described herein can becombined to provide further embodiments.

These and other changes can be made to the compliance framework in lightof the above Detailed Description. While the above description detailscertain embodiments of the technology and describes the best modecontemplated, no matter how detailed the above appears in text, thecompliance framework can be practiced in many ways. The complianceframework may vary considerably in its implementation details, whilestill being encompassed by the technology disclosed herein. As notedabove, particular terminology used when describing certain features oraspects of the compliance framework should not be taken to imply thatthe terminology is being redefined herein to be restricted to anyspecific characteristics, features, or aspects of the technology withwhich that terminology is associated. In general, the terms used in thefollowing claims should not be construed to limit the complianceframework to the specific embodiments disclosed in the specification,unless the above Detailed Description section explicitly defines suchterms. Accordingly, the actual scope of the compliance frameworkencompasses not only the disclosed embodiments, but also all equivalentways of practicing or implementing the compliance framework.

I claim:
 1. A computer system for improving authority documentprocessing, comprising: at least one processor; and memory storinginstructions configured to cause the processor to: identify a pluralityof citations in at least one of a plurality of authoritative documents,identify, in the plurality of citations, content by: selecting a nounfrom a particular citation of the plurality of citations, matching theselected noun to a verb of which the selected noun is the subject,generating a data structure that includes a reference between theselected noun and the matched verb as a noun-verb pair, and associatingthe noun-verb pair data structure with a portion of the content in whichthe selected noun and the matched verb appear, assign a unique controlID to represent each unique noun-verb pair from the plurality ofcitations, and store, in respective rows of a plurality of rows of atable, data indicating: the portion of the content, the particularcitation that corresponds to the content, the control ID thatcorresponds to the content, and the noun-verb pair data structure thatcorresponds to the content.
 2. The computer system of claim 1 whereinthe instructions are further configured to cause the at least oneprocessor to generate an audit compliance report including evidence andwherein the evidence is at least based on the unique control ID.
 3. Thecomputer system of claim 1 wherein the instructions are furtherconfigured to cause the at least one processor to assign a unique nounID to represent each unique noun from the plurality of citations.
 4. Thecomputer system of claim 1 wherein each of the respective rows in thetable is assigned a citation ID, wherein the instructions are furtherconfigured to cause the processor to, for each citation ID, assign aparent ID and a sort ID to each citation represented by the citation ID,wherein the parent ID indicates a respective citation's position in thehierarchy relative to an ancestor and descendent citations in thehierarchy, and wherein the sort ID indicates a respective citation'shierarchy relative to siblings in the hierarchy.
 5. The computer systemof claim 1 wherein the content further includes at least a meta dataportion including: a live value; and a revision field, wherein therevision field indicates a status of the noun-verb pair in one or moreof the plurality of citations relative to a previous noun-verb pairhaving a unique citation ID that is the same as a citation ID of thenoun-verb pair.
 6. The computer system of claim 5 wherein theinstructions are further configured to cause the at least one processorto store in one or more of the plurality of rows of the table the metadata portion.
 7. A method for improving authority document processing ina computer system, the method comprising: identifying a plurality ofcitations in at least one of a plurality of authoritative documents,identifying, in the plurality of citations, content by: selecting a nounfrom a particular citation of the plurality of citations, matching theselected noun to a verb of which the selected noun is the subject,generating a reference between the selected noun and the matched verb asa noun-verb pair, and associating the noun-verb pair with a portion ofthe content in which the selected noun and the matched verb appear,assigning a unique control ID to represent each unique noun-verb pairfrom the plurality of citations, and storing, in respective rows of aplurality of rows of a table, data indicating: the portion of thecontent, the particular citation that corresponds to the content, thecontrol ID that corresponds to the content, and the noun-verb pairreference that corresponds to the content.
 8. The method of claim 7,further comprising generating an audit compliance report includingevidence and wherein the evidence is at least based on the uniquecontrol ID.
 9. The method of claim 7, further comprising assigning aunique noun ID to represent each unique noun from the plurality ofcitations.
 10. The method of claim 7 wherein each of the respective rowsin the table is assigned a citation ID, further comprising, for eachcitation ID, assigning a parent ID and a sort ID to each citationrepresented by the citation ID, wherein the parent ID indicates arespective citation's position in the hierarchy relative to an ancestorand descendent citations in the hierarchy, and wherein the sort IDindicates a respective citation's hierarchy relative to siblings in thehierarchy.
 11. The method of claim 7 wherein the content furtherincludes at least a meta data portion including: a live value; and arevision field, wherein the revision field indicates a status of thenoun-verb pair in one or more of the plurality of citations relative toa previous noun-verb pair having a unique citation ID that is the sameas a citation ID of the noun-verb pair.
 12. The method of claim 11,further comprising storing in one or more of the plurality of rows ofthe table the meta data portion.
 13. A computer-readable medium, that isnot a transitory propagation signal having contents configured to causea computer system to perform a method for improving authority documentprocessing, the method comprising: identifying a plurality of citationsin at least one of a plurality of authoritative documents, identifying,in the plurality of citations, content by: selecting a noun from aparticular citation of the plurality of citations, matching the selectednoun to a verb of which the selected noun is the subject, generating anassociation between the selected noun and the matched verb as anoun-verb pair, and linking the noun-verb pair with a portion of thecontent in which the selected noun and the matched verb appear,assigning a unique control ID to represent each unique noun-verb pairfrom the plurality of citations, and storing, in respective rows of aplurality of rows of a table, data indicating: the portion of thecontent, the particular citation that corresponds to the content, thecontrol ID that corresponds to the content, and the at least onenoun-verb pair that corresponds to the content.
 14. Thecomputer-readable medium of claim 13 wherein the method furthercomprises generating an audit compliance report including evidence andwherein the evidence is at least based on the unique control ID.
 15. Thecomputer-readable medium of claim 13 wherein the method furthercomprises assigning a unique noun ID to represent each unique noun fromthe plurality of citations.
 16. The computer-readable medium of claim 13wherein each of the respective rows in the table is assigned a citationID, wherein the method further comprises, for each citation ID,assigning a parent ID and a sort ID to each citation represented by thecitation ID, wherein the parent ID indicates a respective citation'sposition in the hierarchy relative to an ancestor and descendentcitations in the hierarchy, and wherein the sort ID indicates arespective citation's hierarchy relative to siblings in the hierarchy.17. The computer-readable medium of claim 13 wherein the content furtherincludes at least a meta data portion including: a live value; and arevision field, wherein the revision field indicates a status of thenoun-verb pair in one or more of the plurality of citations relative toa previous noun-verb pair having a unique citation ID that is the sameas a citation ID of the noun-verb pair.
 18. The computer-readable mediumof claim 17 wherein the method further comprises storing in one or moreof the plurality of rows of the table the meta data portion.